Selig praises new supplement law, J.C. Romero awaits apology

Leave a comment

Senators McCain and Dorgan introduced some new legislation today that proposes to more closely regulate the supplement industry in the wake of reports that many products contain designer steroids and other such nasties which aren’t disclosed to the public.  Bud Selig just released a statement on it:

“On behalf of Major League Baseball, I would like to thank Senators
John McCain and Byron Dorgan for their efforts to broaden the Food and
Drug Administration’s regulatory authority over dietary supplements. We
fully support the proposed legislation designed to protect athletes and
consumers from dangerous, mislabeled and tainted over-the-counter
supplements. The continued leadership of Senators McCain and Dorgan has
made an impact on this important issue.”

That’s all good, but if Selig really believed that mislabled and tainted over-the-counter supplements were a problem, why didn’t he buy J.C. Romero’s defense? Romero, you’ll recall, was suspended 50 games for taking something he bought from a GNC store which both he and the MLBPA thought was OK, and contained no evidence that it had bad stuff in it on the label, but turned out to have a banned hormone in it. Baseball didn’t think that got him off the hook and he served his suspension because, according to Major League Baseball, he was “negligent.”

If baseball really thinks guys like Romero were “negligent” then you’d think they’d issue a statement saying that the new law is unnecessary.

UPDATE:  Just had a conversation with someone at Major League Baseball. Their view — which makes a good deal of sense, I’ll admit — is that the drug policy sort of has to take the kind of zero-tolerance approach that was taken in the Romero case, or else enforcement actions are going to be prone to a bunch of “I didn’t know what I was taking” defenses, rendering the policy largely ineffective. Ultimately, the issue is whether a player — despite his intentions — competed in a game with a banned substance in his system. I can see that. Baseball’s drug policy, while having multiple purposes, should probably have “making sure athletes are competing on a level playing field” as its top priority.

But one question I do have is that, if that’s the case, what’s the point of even having an appeals and arbitration process like the one Romero went through in the first place? Why not just a test-positive-no-appeal kind of system? Or at the most an appeals process that only scrutinizes the science of it all, such as whether the test itself was wrongly administered or whether the samples were tainted or what have you?

Oh good, it’s “Yasiel Puig is a showboat” season

Getty Images
6 Comments

With the Los Angeles Dodgers punching their ticket to the World Series, Yasiel Puig is now going to be the subject of commentary by people who tend not to care about Yasiel Puig until it’s useful for them to write outraged columns or go on talk radio rants about baseball deportment.

We got a brief teaser of this last night when, after scoring the Dodgers’ ninth run on a Logan Forsythe double, TBS analyst Ron Darling criticized Puig for his “shenanigans” and “rubbing it in.” Never mind that his third base coach was waving him home and that, if he didn’t run hard, he was just as likely to be criticized for dogging it. In other news, baseball teams don’t stop trying in the fourth inning of baseball games, nor should they.

That was just an appetizer, though. The first real course of the “Puig is a problem” feast we’re likely to be served over the next week and a half comes from Phil Mushnick of the New York Post, who wrote it even before the Dodgers won Game 5 last night:

If you were raised to love baseball and to recognize the smart, winning kind from everything less, the Dodgers’ Yasiel Puig is insufferable. As the sport is diminished by professionals who disregard the basic act of running to first base as a matter of style, Puig, an incurable home-plate poser, often makes turning doubles and triples into singles appear effortless . . . In the postseason, Puig continues to behave as if he’s in the Home Run Derby. He even seems to relish his high-risk flamboyant foolishness despite frequent backfires.

This may as well be a fill in the blanks column from 2013 or 2014, when “Puig is a flashy showboater who costs his team more than he gives it” columns were all the rage. It ignores the fact that Puig, commonly dinged for being lazy, worked his butt off in 2017, particularly on defense, to the point where he has a strong case for a Gold Glove this year. It also ignores his .455/.538/.727 line in the NLDS sweep of the Diamondbacks and his .389/.500/.611 line against the Cubs in the NLCS. In the regular season he set career highs for games, homers, RBI, stolen bases and almost set a career high for walks despite having seventy fewer plate appearances than he did back in 2013 when he walked 67 times. He’s not the MVP candidate some thought he might be, but he’s a fantastic player who has been a key part of the Dodgers winning their first pennant in 29 years.

But the dings on Puig from the likes of Mushnick have rarely been about production. They’ve simply been about style and the manner in which he’s carried himself. To the extent those issues were legitimate points of criticism — particularly his tardiness, his relationships with his teammates and his at times questionable dedication — they have primarily been in-house concerns for the Dodgers, not the casual fan like Mushnick. On that score the Dodgers have dealt with Puig and, by all accounts, Puig has responded pretty well. An occasional lapse to be sure, but nothing which makes him a greater burden than a benefit. I mean, if he was, would be be batting cleanup in a pennant-clinching game?

So if the beef with Puig is not really about baseball, what could Phil Mushnick’s issue with him possible be?

I, for one, have no idea whatsoever.